BRC's propsed gun control legislation

[BigRedChief]

I'm a known Obama supporter on here. I also have a long standing belief that gun control legislation usually doesn't work and besides...and this is not a small thing in the discussion..........the constitution is clear, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. Thats why even though I don't own guns or hunt that I've been a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear.

I understand that the constitution is also very clear on free speech but we restrict free speech in some circumstances (libel, yelling fire etc.). Thats the test that I've always used in evaluating any gun control legislation. If we allow and support the real ugly and reprehensible parts of free speech such as the Nazi's marching in a Jewish neighborhood then the Democrats must do the same with allowing gun owners that freedom guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Republicans have to be open to some limitations on gun control along the same lines as the limits we put on free speech.

The compromise:

1. Forbid the mentally ill to own guns of any kind.
2. Forbid those who have been found guilty of violence against fellow citizens from owning guns.
3. Make illegal the purchase and ownership of armor piercing bullets.
4. Make illegal any ammunition clips greater than 10 rounds. (Exception could be in place for gun ranges)
5. Make laws that punish gun owners if their own registered guns are used to commit crimes.
6. Closing the gun show loophole.

#1 and #2 are easy. No one should be against those proposals.
#3 There is no need reason for an individual citizen to own armor piercing bullets.
#4 This is the key. The Ft. Hood, Va. tech, Gabby Giffords shooter were all stopped when their ammo clips ran out and they stop to reload. We can limit the body count if they have to stop to reload a clip even if it takes only 3-5 seconds.
#5 Gun owners should already be securing their firearms so that kids, mentally ill, suicidal people don't have access to their guns. This would have prevented Shady Hook.
#6 You buy a gun at your local shop they perform a background check but buy at a gun show they don't? Thats idiotic. If there is a background check, it applies to gun shows.



What got left off the table:

• Assault weapons ban. It was already in effect for 10 years. It didn't lower crime. It doesn't meet the first amendment Nazi's marching test. The constitution is about the rights to own guns, not how many bullets that gun can fire.
• Mental illness legislation. A different discussion.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

This is just pure BS.

Nope!

you think the government is holding back from becoming a dictatorship because some citizens have pea shooters?

Well, I didn't say it like that. You're spinning it as "holding back" as in restraining themselves because that's what they want to do. It's an influence...and a good one.

We have the biggest and best military the world has ever known. You think they are so scared of a citizen with a glock that they haven't turned our country into a dictatorship?

That's why we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan 'eh?

Our Framers also feared having a standing army too.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Nope!



Well, I didn't say it like that. You're spinning it as "holding back" as in restraining themselves because that's what they want to do. It's an influence...and a good one.


That's why we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan 'eh?

Our Framers also feared having a standing army too.

But we were not scared to go into Iraq and Afghanistan. Your theory was that the government was holding back or scared from a dictatorship because its own citizens have guns.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

You don't think the Sandy Hook tragedy is going to generate legislature out of Washington?

Nope. Nor do I think it should. I mean, mental health regulations regarding gun ownership maybe. But that's it.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

But we were not scared to go into Iraq and Afghanistan.

That has nothing to do with my point.

Your theory was that the government was holding back or scared from a dictatorship because its own citizens have guns.

No that's your paraphrase. My point was missed—entirely.

It's also not a theory....it's what some of our Framers thought. You should read them sometimes.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

Nope. Nor do I think it should. I mean, mental health regulations regarding gun ownership maybe. But that's it.

I was just trying to read the Washington tea leaves.

I think we can look at the high capacity magazines but if nothing is done, I'm okay with that approach.

I think we do need to focus on mental illness, not the gun the nutjob is holding.

[CLX]

Too many holes in the poll.

Some good concepts but at the end of the day you will only have honest upstanding citizens with the guns as legislated and the criminals will always have what it takes to do the crimes.

Making something illegal and against the law doesn't necessarily remove the threat by those that can re-manufacture their weapons to fully automatic assault weapons.

As for someone with a criminal record, I thought that was already part of the approval check.

Once you do away with no checks at Gun Shows you have to deal with the private citizen selling their weapons or having them stolen.

[RNR]

Misplaced vote, it is flat out no with the round capacity bullshit. The rest doesn't bother me, it will do zero to prevent anything but if it would satisfy the anti gun crowd so be it~

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Huh?

Your proposals don't address the problem so I don't see them as becoming intelligent law.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by Fat Elvis

Number 1 is completely insane.

What exactly is "mental illness" or "mentally ill?"

How do you forbid someone who suffers from, but hasn't been diagnosed as "mentally ill" from purchasing a gun?

What is the threshold for "mentally ill" and who defines it? Would someone who is paranoid that the government is going to take over their freedoms if they don't have their military grade guns/weapons qualify as mentally ill? It certainly does in my book. I consider that delusional thinking.

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 25% of adults live with some type of mental illness and that 50% of the US population has a mental illness at some point in their life.

Does your proposal also mean that if someone in your household or family have a mental illness that you are prevented from having a gun as well? Remember, other members in your household will have access to the guns even if you aren't mentally ill. The Sandy Point shooter was mentally ill, his mother wasn't; he shot up the school with her guns--access to those guns would be totally legal under your proposal.

Finally, the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent at all. In my estimation, stripping a person of their 4th Amendment Right to due process is far worse than stripping people of their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms.

I chose to reply to this post since it articulated the issue most clearly. If drawn vaguely, what you say is true, simply saying "mentally ill" causes several problems. Chief among these is that people seeking mental health counseling for nonviolent issues may be unfairly swept up. More importantly, they may intentionally avoid such counseling because it will affect their gun rights.

On the other hand, as others have pointed out, there are many states that have related laws already on the books. Most of these ate drawn a bit more narrowly than the OP. In KS for instance, the rule is that if you are "adjudicated mentally incomptent" that you may not possess a firearm. That's obviously a much more enforceable version.

[banyon]

#2 is a little vague as well. While I think everyone would agree that people who do a drive by shooting should be prohibited, does "crime of violence" include a guy in a bar fight? Currently federal rules include domestic battery. These are probably tougher places to draw the line, but that doesn't mean you can't draw it.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

This is just pure BS.

you think the government is holding back from becoming a dictatorship because some citizens have pea shooters?

We have the biggest and best military the world has ever known. You think they are so scared of a citizen with a glock that they haven't turned our country into a dictatorship?

Once again, our police and military WOULD NOT attack it's own citizens. They are us.

If the order came down, the military would fracture and the following events would make the civil war look like a school yard fight.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by notorious

Once again, our police and military WOULD NOT attack it's own citizens. They are us.

If the order came down, the military would fracture and the following events would make the civil war look like a school yard fight.

Correct, the military did kill protesters at Kent State but that wasn't really a systemic reaction.

The communist's in russia finally fell when the military wouldn't fire on its fellow countrymen. I don't foresee any scenario in which the U.S. military would kill its own citizens to support tyranny.

So I don't buy we need guns to protect us from tyranny. I can get on board with we need guns to protect my family from bad guys.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

So I don't buy we need guns to protect us from tyranny. I can get on board with we need guns to protect my family from bad guys.

You are contradicting yourself. The "bad guys" includes tyrants by definition. BTW, my argument against tyranny and for liberty is the exact same reason as our Founders.
I guess you just don't like the reason the 2nd Amendment was written.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Correct, the military did kill protesters at Kent State but that wasn't really a systemic reaction.

The communist's in russia finally fell when the military wouldn't fire on its fellow countrymen. I don't foresee any scenario in which the U.S. military would kill its own citizens to support tyranny.

So I don't buy we need guns to protect us from tyranny. I can get on board with we need guns to protect my family from bad guys.

UN peacekeepers would, though. Under the guidance of Homeland Security.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

This is just pure BS.

you think the government is holding back from becoming a dictatorship because some citizens have pea shooters?

We have the biggest and best military the world has ever known. You think they are so scared of a citizen with a glock that they haven't turned our country into a dictatorship?

Do you think the ENTIRE military would fire upon its own people?

Some would. Otherwise, you'd be looking at massive mutiny.